Panthers' trade deadline moves - real reason?

seanlinden

Registered User
Apr 28, 2009
24,826
1,343
Then why does that team have a city? Why should the rest of the league support a team in a city that doesn't support that team itself? Otherwise, why wouldn't the league just plop up teams in small rural areas that have beautiful scenery? Sure it won't be supported by the locals, but the rest of the league can support it and the players who play there can enjoy living in a beautiful town.

Coming up next, the New York Rangers play on the road against the Martha's Vineyard Winers.

Because having a widespread presence in the United States is essential to the sport's long term success. Everyone talks about how the NHL would be so much better if they got rid of the sunbelt teams, because they all lose money, but people forget that without hockey fans in the sunbelt, the major US networks aren't going to pay big bucks for TV rights for the Rangers, Flyers, etc. This is because they'll know that only 1/3 of the country actually has somewhat of an interest in hockey.

The same theory can be applied to any sport. By your logic, we should get rid of the Oakland Raiders. They are one of the least valuable teams in the league and are set in a marketplace (California) that has other teams. The major difference in the NFL -- they have an absolutely ridiculous CBA that caps player salaries at the total TV revenue (which is shared equally amongst the teams). If they had a system like the NHL's, there would be teams struggling just like the Panthers. If the NHL could cap player salaries at the total TV revenues (and share that amongst the teams), they'd all be laughing.
 
Last edited:

blueandgoldguy

Registered User
Oct 8, 2010
5,239
2,467
Greg's River Heights
I think the reason for the moves by Tallon are simply to tear the team down before he builds them back up. Through a series of trades he has managed to acquire several - not sure how many - draft picks in the first three rounds of the 2011 draft. This follows the 2010 draft in which Tallon drafted 3 players in the top 25.

He is willing to start from scratch, more or less, with this team and mold them in his image. What that is, and if it is a reasonable facsimile of the Chicago Blackhawks team he left a few years ago, I'm not really sure.

The team looks to be on a similar path as his previous team in that they will most likely be a bottom 5 or bottom 10 team for some years to come. Whether that translates into a Toews or Kane-like player be picked in upcoming drafts to lead the team to the Stanley Cup remains to be seen and won't be answered for some years.

Considering the quantity and quality of draft picks that have already been chosen and will be chosen in the upcoming drafts, I would expect some of these picks to become, at the very least, good NHL players. The sheer number of draft picks would suggest that.

At the very least, Tallon should be setting this team on course for consecutive playoff appearances for the first time in over a decade. Young players (within their first 8 years) after all, are cheaper than older ones in the sense that they produce more value on the dollar than an older unrestricted free agent.
 

Steve Passless*

Guest
Two big parts of Dale Tallon's success were being allowed to spend to the cap and, since 2007, having considerable marketing muscle behind his team (and I don't mean "we have clever promotions from time to time" marketing, I mean "we're going to make ourselves one of the biggest things in sports because we can" marketing), which led to the revenues that enabled high spending. The Panthers lack that. Along with the solid bedrock of drafted/developed players, the Blackhawks also relied on big contributions from big-ticket free agents. Even John Madden cost almost $4 million for that season.

Because having a widespread presence in the United States is essential to the sport's long term success. Everyone talks about how the NHL would be so much better if they got rid of the sunbelt teams, because they all lose money, but people forget that without hockey fans in the sunbelt, the major US networks aren't going to pay big bucks for TV rights for the Rangers, Flyers, etc.
Then there must not be hockey fans in the sunbelt, because the major US networks still aren't paying big bucks for TV rights. Unless, of course, you consider "we'll go halfsies on commercials" to be big bucks.
 

Hawkscap

Registered User
Jan 22, 2007
2,614
29
Tallon's draft record isn't all that great especially if you take out Toews and Kane.

Madden made $2.75 mil, last year.
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
Because having a widespread presence in the United States is essential to the sport's long term success. Everyone talks about how the NHL would be so much better if they got rid of the sunbelt teams, because they all lose money, but people forget that without hockey fans in the sunbelt, the major US networks aren't going to pay big bucks for TV rights for the Rangers, Flyers, etc. This is because they'll know that only 1/3 of the country actually has somewhat of an interest in hockey.

The major US networks don't pay big bucks for TV rights because they already know only 1/3 of the country actually has somewhat of an interest in hockey. It's not a big secret. It doesn't matter to the major US networks if there is a team in Miami or not because few people in Miami watch hockey on TV anyway.
 

seanlinden

Registered User
Apr 28, 2009
24,826
1,343
The major US networks don't pay big bucks for TV rights because they already know only 1/3 of the country actually has somewhat of an interest in hockey. It's not a big secret. It doesn't matter to the major US networks if there is a team in Miami or not because few people in Miami watch hockey on TV anyway.

Well that depends on your definition of "big bucks". It's obviously nowhere near the amount of money the NBA/NFL/MLB get, but also much more than the NHL would get if they didn't have sunbelt teams.

Few people in Miami watching is better than no people.
 

Steve Passless*

Guest
I wonder how many networks before 1993 were inches away from signing a big contract only to pull it away when they saw that there wasn't an ice hockey team in suburban Miami.
 

Retail1LO*

Guest
I think you guys are reading too much into this. IMO, Tallon has fully committed to building through the draft and since they've played pretty well this season given the roster on paper, this is his way of making sure they tank at the end to get the highest pick possible. This team is in desperate need of another top 3 pick and the PR that goes with it.

Not at all. I don't think there's anything wrong with rebuilding. Not even a little bit. However, when you voluntarily shed salaries to pursue this route of development, should you be eligible for revenue sharing because you opted to take a path that assuredly is going to make you less competitive, and likely less profitable, during the stretch of time needed to achieve success?
 

Sergei Goldenhands

Used Registerer
Feb 19, 2009
1,954
0
Quebec City
Because having a widespread presence in the United States is essential to the sport's long term success. Everyone talks about how the NHL would be so much better if they got rid of the sunbelt teams, because they all lose money, but people forget that without hockey fans in the sunbelt, the major US networks aren't going to pay big bucks for TV rights for the Rangers, Flyers, etc. This is because they'll know that only 1/3 of the country actually has somewhat of an interest in hockey.

When was the last time the Panthers, Coyotes or Thrashers were featured on a nationally televised game in the US (except the one time a year on Versus)? So why would it be a problem with moving those teams to smaller markets?

Same thing happened in the NBA with the Vancouver Grizzlies and Seattle Sonics moving to smaller markets like Memphis and Oklahoma City and there wasn't any major consequences in the TV rights prices. Panthers gets pathetic viewership numbers and a vast majority of the fans in the arena when there is some (when they're playing against big market teams) are cheering for the away team.
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
Well that depends on your definition of "big bucks". It's obviously nowhere near the amount of money the NBA/NFL/MLB get, but also much more than the NHL would get if they didn't have sunbelt teams.

Few people in Miami watching is better than no people.

There aren't any NFL teams in Canada: does that mean people in Canada don't watch NFL football?

Similarly, if there was no NHL team in Miami, would people in Miami not watch other hockey games? (Kind of a moot point considering, what, only 10000 people watch Panthers games on TV anyway?)

Even with a team in Miami (and Tampa, Raleigh, Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, etc.) what difference does it make? You say the NHL needs a presence all over the USA to get a national TV deal but they already DO have a presence all over the USA and they still don't have a national TV deal. What makes you think it's going to change anytime soon?
 
Last edited:

Steve Passless*

Guest
Without the Panthers, people in Miami would watch just as many Rangers games as they do with them, so what's the problem?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->